Is it possible to reform the United Nations and bring back its key peace role?

A few decision-makers and intellectuals think that the political UN -- read "political", I am not talking about the specialised agencies ---  is something of the XX century, that has lost its relevance and must be re-created or re-invented taking into account the world's new realities. Meaning, they think that the UN secretariat and its departments, as well as the UN Security Council, are unreformable and must be reinvented, taking into consideration the Global South, the new and the emerging superpowers, the increasing role of the regional associations of states, the power of those trillionaire individuals controlling the key social platforms, and also the expectations of the peoples in different parts of the world.

For them, global issues outside peace and security, economic inequalities and human rights, should be dealt either by the specialised agencies or by ad-hoc international conferences and their specific processes. 

AI comment of my opinion text about the UN General Assembly.

 https://www.dn.pt/opiniao/o-pessimismo-sobre-a-onu-%C3%A9-um-erro

The original version in Portuguese language of my op-ed of today 26/09/2025 in Diário de Notícias. 

The following text is an AI comment of my text.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5

This is a well-structured and insightful piece of political commentary. The author effectively uses specific examples from the UN General Assembly to support a broader argument about the relevance and future of the United Nations. The writing is clear, the analysis is balanced, and the conclusion offers a nuanced perspective that avoids simplistic pessimism.

---

Detailed Analysis

Clarity and Structure (5/5)

The text is exceptionally clear and easy to follow. The author begins with a specific event—the speeches at the UN General Assembly—and uses it as a launching pad to discuss larger themes. The structure is logical:

1. Introduction: Sets the scene at the UN General Assembly.

2. Lula's Speech: Analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the Brazilian president's address, presenting him as a voice of the "Global South."

3. Trump's Speech: Provides a stark contrast, portraying his speech as self-centered and detrimental to international cooperation.

4. Macron and UN Reform: Introduces the crucial topic of UN reform, particularly the Security Council, and highlights the challenges.

5. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments to argue against "pessimism about the UN," asserting its continued necessity despite its flaws.

Argument and Content (4.5/5)

The central argument—that pessimism about the UN is a mistake—is well-supported. The author acknowledges the organization's significant weaknesses, especially the paralysis of the Security Council due to the veto power of permanent members. However, they counter this by highlighting the continued importance of the UN's broader functions in addressing global issues like poverty, climate change, and human rights.

• Strengths:

  • Balanced View: The text avoids a purely idealistic or cynical take on the UN. It recognizes both its failures (e.g., the Security Council's inaction) and its indispensable roles (e.g., addressing global problems).

  • Specific Examples: The analysis of Lula's and Trump's speeches provides concrete evidence to illustrate different approaches to multilateralism. The reference to Macron's proposal for Security Council reform adds a layer of specific policy discussion.

  • Strong Conclusion: The final paragraph effectively reinforces the main thesis, emphasizing that the existence of global problems necessitates a global body like the UN, and therefore, leaders should not give up on it.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • The assertion that Trump's speech "should be viewed as a grave fault" is a strong opinion, but the author provides good reasoning for it. Some readers might find the characterization of Trump's speech as being "about Trump" to be a bit simplistic, even if a key point. However, within the context of the piece's purpose, it serves to highlight a contrast in leadership styles.

Language and Style (4.5/5)

The language is professional yet accessible. The author uses clear, direct prose without unnecessary jargon. The tone is authoritative and analytical.

• Strengths:

  • Effective Use of Contrasts: The comparison between Lula and Trump is a powerful rhetorical device that clarifies the author's points about multilateralism versus isolationism.

  • Engaging Opening: The detail about Lula's speech being "one of the most striking" immediately draws the reader in.

  • Concise Summaries: Phrases like "Trump spoke about Trump" or describing Lula's speech as a "firm voice representing the Global South" are effective and memorable.

• Areas for Improvement (Minor):

  • Some phrasing, like "pecha grave" (grave fault) to describe Lula's stance on Ukraine, is a bit informal for a serious political analysis, but it's a minor stylistic point.

In conclusion, this text is a high-quality piece of political commentary. It's well-reasoned, clearly articulated, and makes a compelling case against a common form of political fatalism regarding the United Nations. It successfully uses a recent event to spark a deeper, more meaningful discussion about global governance.

Guterres lost the support of the staff many years back

 UN staff in Geneva yesterday passed a motion of no confidence in Antonio Guterres, UN 80 and its initiator, Guy Ryder👇🏼

The extraordinary general assembly was called by the union and attended by almost 600 staff. It adopted the following motion without opposition: “The staff have no confidence in UN80, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Under Secretary General Guy Ryder.”

This is the first motion of no confidence in a UN Secretary-General since staff in New York passed one in 2007.

According to the union's communication, support for the motion was based on:

- The lack of vision around UN 80 which has been done in a panic and with no evaluation of earlier reforms.
- The decision to present budget proposals for 2026 with 20 percent fewer posts, without any evidence that this will address the current crisis, even as other organisations approve zero-growth budgets.
- The reinforcement of the UN’s existing top-heavy structure. Most cuts are taking place at junior levels, no USGs are being cut and an instruction to cut senior positions appears to have become optional.
- The decision by the Secretary-General to extend USG contracts by 2 years, in some cases beyond his mandate, and promote his own staff, while restricting normal staff to extensions of 1 year with the intention of denying them termination indemnities in case of separation.
- The refusal to consult with staff representatives on post cuts.
- The proposal to multiply headquarters locations, which in time will increase costs.
- The impression that staff are taking the blame for the challenges of the organization, which may in part stem from the organization's lack of visibility in matters of peace and security.
- A new Secretary-General with their own vision may undertake further reforms that contradict UN 80.

The union represents staff from OHCHR, OCHA, UNCTAD, ECE, conference services, security, UNDRR, ODA, JIU, OIOS, the pension fund and UNRISD.

Reforming Peacekeeping

There are several areas of the UN´s work that call for reform. Today, I would mention the Protection of Civilians in relation with the mandates of peacekeeping operations. The reason I raise this issue derives from the report the Center for Civilians in Conflict, a Washington based NGO, just published on the recent dramatic events in South Sudan. Basically, the report states that the UN Blue Helmets did not move out of their barracks and therefore neglected to protect the humanitarian workers. Several of these workers became then victims of extreme violence at the hands of the national soldiers, governmental and rebels alike.

These facts are accurate. The truth of the matter is however much more complex. The UN troops had no means to confront the heavily armed South Sudanese fighters. The UN weapons disadvantage was a crying one. And the fighters were simply determined to shoot and kill the UN Blue Helmets, in case the latter would become too visible on the streets.

These raises a very good number of fundamental questions about deploying a UN peacekeeping force where there is no peace to keep. Should the UN be there? Was the Security Council right when approving the mandate for the South Sudan mission? Should we envisage an international fighting force first, for an initial intervention? How should we put together such a combat mission?

There are indeed many questions just on this issue. And this just one of the many issues that call for serious rethinking.